Skepticism

EVENTS

Hypocrisy alert

Representative Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee is a fanatical Tea Party Republican who campaigns on his fanatical pro-life stance and his fanatical ‘family values’ who fanatically touts the importance of traditional marriage.

You know exactly where this is going, don’t you? I could just stop writing right here and you’d be able to fill in the rest of the story.

Yep, his marriage fell apart thanks to his philandering, and now we have a recording of a phone call with his ex-mistress in which he’s urging her impatiently to get an abortion. The only thing we’re missing so far is a gay fling and voting “yes” on a Democratic health care bill to confirm his demonic status.

Not that it matters. He’s still leading in his election campaign. The Tea Baggers don’t actually give a damn about their so-called values — you don’t have to live them if you just shout them angrily enough.

Well, he wasn’t going to get the abortion, so it obviously doesn’t count.

From the linked HuffPo article:

A pro-life, family-values congressman who worked as a doctor before winning election as a Tea Party-backed Republican had an affair with a patient and later pressured her to get an abortion, according to a phone call transcript obtained by The Huffington Post.

Yes, there is video of Republicans blaming the last time CO2 rose on dinosaur farts; Republicans saying that teaching evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory comes from “the pit of Hell; and there’s always Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” theories about the female reproductive system (backed up by one his cohorts on the House Science Committee).

“a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21″
— Republican Charlie Fuqua, from his book God’s Law

“I think my views are fairly well-accepted by most people” — Charles Fuqua, as quoted by the Associated Press

This, my friends, is Christian Reconstructionism. Fuqua is also the guy who thinks slavery was a blessing in disguise.

The foundations of Christian Reconstructionism were laid by the late Rousas J. Rushdoony in his prolific writing including his major tome, Institutes of Biblical Law and promoted through his Chalcedon Foundation. Reconstructionism teaches that all institutions of society and government must be reclaimed from “humanists” and reconstructed on the basis of biblical law. Reconstructionists claim that the unfettered free markets are biblically mandated. In other words, God is the invisible hand behind laissez-faire capitalism and government intervention is putting faith in man instead of God. Reconstructionist leaders have overlapped significantly with two other organizations that have sacralized radical free markets – Lew Rockwell’s Ludwig von Mises Institute, which promotes Austrian School economics, and the John Birch Society. [quoting Rachel Tabachnick, who reveals Christian Reconstructionism in all its mind-boggling horror.

Yes, all Christian Reconstructionists need is a semblance of intellectual cover, then they are off and running to create the great Theocracy the USA was always meant to be.

I see this and think about how much my life has changed in the last twelve years. This happened back in 2000. The guy had a divorce and had his family split apart, perhaps that has impacted his view of the world.

I don’t want to defend him too much, my guess is that he was preaching this stuff back then and hasn’t really changed his ways, but the time difference does make this different from some of the more recent scandals.

I’m not sure I get your point. Twelve years ago DesJarlais had an adulterous affair with one of his own patients (one of four documented affairs btw), pressured her to have an abortion, and ended up divorcing his first wife and mother of his first child after a marital breakdown in which he used violent and threatening language. Two years ago DesJarlais entered Congress on a Tea-Party backed ticket. Did he tell anyone about his past behaviour? No. In fact, when some of the details of his threats prior to his divorce were made public during his 2010 campaign, he denied them and claimed they were invented by his political opponents.

I’m sorry, but pending some mythical statement from before this becoming public knowledge, in which DesJarlais acknowledges his past behaviours and explains why he changed his beliefs, this is hypocrisy of the absolutely worst kind.

Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh sued for $100000 in child support
ww.suntimes.com/…/tea-party-rep.-joe-walsh-sued-for-100000-in-c…

27 Jul 2011 – Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill. addresses a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill in … owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three …

DesJarlais isn’t the only monster the Tea Party got elected.

Joe Walsh of Illinois owed over $100,000 in child support after he was elected. I have no idea how his 3 kids survived. Maybe they were among the 47% moochers and parasites that Romney and his buddies hate so much.

OK salg, time to defend Walsh. Explain why it is OK to not support your three kids. After all a lot can change in 12 years. Although this happened last year.

This is typical of the mentality of the religious Right – they always see themselves as exempt from the requirements of their own puritanical pseudo-morality. The most blatent of them even admit it openly, claiming that they – as god fearin’, pious folk – have the moral integrity and judgement to know when the supposedly inviolate rules can be bent a little, and that it is only the lesser mortals who cannot be trusted and so must be forced to conform at all times.

You see, when other people have abortions, it is because they are promiscuous, immoral fornicators unable to take responsibility for their actions. But when they have abortions it is because they really didn’t have any other choice.

When other people have affairs, they are ‘profaning the sacred institution of marriage’ and are generally little more than animals incapable of controlling their base urges. But when they have affairs it is because they were the victims of calculating seduction.

And, needless to say, their god always conveniently agrees with them.Why, it is almost as though yahweh is an anthropomorphised projection of their own prejudices and desires…

I’m with Amanda Marcotte on this one. It only looks hypocritical if you take their “Family Values” bull at face value. And let’s face it, there’s absolutely no reason to do that. In their actual “ethics”-system, this behavior is entirely consistent: women are the possessions of men, and therefore he gets to have affairs, and gets to decide whether his mistress should have a baby or not.

and in that sense, demanding that his mistress have an abortion, but being a supporter of anti-abortion legislation is also consistent. Abortion being legal means the woman can decide for herself whether she can have an abortion. when it’s illegal though (and when they’re done dismantling the social safety net, as well as bringing back shunning of single mothers), she has to do what her rich owner tells her to.

In their actual “ethics”-system, this behavior is entirely consistent: women are the possessions of men, and therefore he gets to have affairs, and gets to decide whether his mistress should have a baby or not.

If their ethics actually includes making abortions illegal, then neither of them would get to decide that. Instead, it would be the big, scary theocratic government they probably think they’re going to control, with their hunting rifles and militia training or some shit. Whether they’ve thought it through or not, part of their system certainly seems to be manipulating people into voting for them while never intending to do anything about it (not just abortion either, obviously), but I wouldn’t exactly call it “consistent” when it’s a bunch of lies.

Roland:
You’re giving the Tea Baggin’ crowd far too much credit. It’s very much “do as I say, not as I do”– as long as their choosen politician parrots the right arguments, he could be Pol Pot for all they care.

It’s the good ol’ Evangelical Christian morality. If you sincerely believe in something, you’re right. If you sincerely believe in God, you can do no wrong. Gut feelings trump evidence. Faith trumps reality. Up is down.

Chrislawson – I was not aware of all the details and that he kept this covered up. The article that was linked to did not have all the details (hence my comment).

raven – I don’t think I’m the person you suspect. I even stated that I thought “he hasn’t really changed his ways.” There wasn’t any part of my post that stated what he had done was acceptable nor did I state that he was not responsible for his actions. My only point was that people can change, and that I did not know this guy’s whole story.

You seem to be projecting things onto me that have no basis in what I’ve said. It is obvious that you are not ready for a rational discussion when you immediately link me to Bush and an Illinois senator strictly because I stated that people can change.

Should point out that the “its wrong but my case is special” is more of a human failing than conservative…but conservatives seem to promote it to art form

True, everyone has moments when we excuse our behavior that we critisize others for. It’s just that I don’t see a whole hell of a lot of liberals trying to criminalize abortion or outlaw marriage equality or whathaveyou.

Well 1) no most people do not change very much. 2) fucking burden of proof is on you to show he changed before he earns the benefit of doubt. He MIGHT have saved a kid from drowning, we don’t know he did so zero credit for that. You’re asking for basically special disponsation for him because of a possability (not even probablity) though if I may be a huge bitch I think what your really looking for is affirmation that YOU changed and this was just a trigger. Try not to piggyback fishing for approval on the backs of this

1) I believe that people can change over the course of a decade. I certainly don’t have any studies that prove this, but I think your bald assertion that people do not is equally supported by literature.

2) I never claimed he changed, in fact I stated the opposite. I will quote myself “my guess is that he was preaching this stuff back then and hasn’t really changed his ways”.

3) I’m not asking for anything. I am certainly not asking for special treatment for him. I have not defended his actions, I do not support his current positions.

4) When I saw a post pointing out hypocrisy I was expecting to see someone caught doing something that goes against what they currently are preaching. I was not expecting a post about an incident that occurred twelve years ago and relating it to what that same person is espousing today. My point is that there is no implicit hypocrisy if he has changed his ways; this story did not address any of what happened in between other than his getting elected. It specifically did not address his opinions back when these acts occurred.

5) I don’t look to online forums for approval. I find this medium is a poor place for that.

. My point is that there is no implicit hypocrisy if he has changed his ways

this would be honest, if he had admitted to the issues BEFORE he started preaching the “family values” chorus.

Did he?

then, of course, there’s always the example of the many, many “born again” xians who really are completely full of shit, and are obviously just attempting to rationalize their own bad behavior and “forgive themselves”.

frankly, I don’t see this clown as EITHER. He’s simply a liar, utilizing hotbutton issues to further his own political career.

They can, but it shouldn’t be the default assumption that they do. People change. But not universally, frequently, and in every dimension, which is what would be required to simply assume that the good doctor wasn’t a Teabagging when he was cheating and coercing. The null hypothesis, the default assumption, is “no change”. If it is wrong, someone can prove otherwise. It is much harder to prove “no change” and much less accurate to simply assume change (for every characteristic!).

In that transcript from the past, he 1) pressures a woman to do what HE wants her to do, with no hint of regard for what she wants or has to say, and 2) tries to blame her, entirely, for the situation.

Now, as his political platform, he 1) wants to force women to do what HE wants them to do, without regard for what they want or say, and justifies it by 2) blaming women for the situation.

This has gotten tedious and I was prepared to just let it go until I read “and I begin to wonder just how naive and gullible you are?”

Exactly what part of my position is naive and gullible? I still feel people can change over the course of 12 years. I still think that past behavior may not be a reflection of your current ways.

I have not said this about DesJarlais, if you think I have, please quote me. I have also not stated that it should be assumed that people have changed and in my first post I made the comment that I didn’t believe he had.

Regardless, I have been quite amused at the response my comment has generated. Apparently, “people have the capability for change” is quite a controversial statement.

That statement has commenters calling me “naive and gullible” and an “apologist for monsters”. I’ve been “accused” of supporting Bush, asked to defend Joe Walsh, told to stop fishing for compliments, and been told the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate a person has changed when I never stated they had. I apparently also have a subscription to Playmonster. Not bad for my first comment on FtB, no wonder some people think this place is less than friendly.

Nope, you are a troll who pretends agreement to gain trust. Doesn’t work here, so stop it.

Exactly what part of my position is naive and gullible?

All of it. You are apologizing for bad/hypocritical behavior, and refuse to see it. This is concern trolling.

if you think I have, please quote me.

We read between the lines. Too many concern trolls are very precise in their apologies, but when read between the lines, you actually support that which you are trying to apologize for. Dog whistles are present.

Apparently, “people have the capability for change” is quite a controversial statement.

Especially for RWA types. So not the case, as this politician is. No changes whatsoever without you providing citations to evidence the case. I see nothing….

Not bad for my first comment on FtB, no wonder some people think this place is less than friendly [for abject stupidity and concern trolling.]

Apparently, “people have the capability for change” is quite a controversial statement.

You really are a mealy-mouthed bastard, aren’t ya? You didn’t just fire off a random “people can change” without any connection to the topic at hand. You brought that up in an attempt to say “he could have changed, ergo it is not that hypocritical”. Or, as you put it:

I see this and think about how much my life has changed in the last twelve years. This happened back in 2000. The guy had a divorce and had his family split apart, perhaps that has impacted his view of the world.

I don’t want to defend him too much, my guess is that he was preaching this stuff back then and hasn’t really changed his ways, but the time difference does make this different from some of the more recent scandals.

Oh, yes, you have gotten much mileage out of the phrase in the middle that I didn’t bold there. Excellent hedging. But, the fact of the matter is that you bringing up “people can change” is controversial because 1. you seem to assume that it is true to a far greater degree than is actually warranted and 2. you only brought it up to sort-of-but-not-really defend a sleazeball. And now you’ve given up on that but haven’t given up on pretending that you didn’t do anything at all that should set off our alarms.

That statement has commenters calling me “naive and gullible” and an “apologist for monsters”. I’ve been “accused” of supporting Bush, asked to defend Joe Walsh, told to stop fishing for compliments, and been told the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate a person has changed when I never stated they had. I apparently also have a subscription to Playmonster. Not bad for my first comment on FtB, no wonder some people think this place is less than friendly.

BAAAAAAAAAW. If you already knew it had a reputation for being “less than friendly” why bother testing the waters by playing the part of Devil’s Advocate for the sake of an awful human being? Instead of whining about your reception here, how about you think about how your statements come off to us and try to perhaps grasp WHY you received those responses instead of going on to play Misunderstood Victim?

I acknowledge that I am not just a misunderstoon victim. I apologize for my initial comment that could be interperted as a defense of this guy. However, that was not my intent. The “hedge” you refer to were my actual feelings at the time. I didn’t think he’d actually changed, but I was open to the possibility. After further reading, I have stepped away from it being a possibility and stated that he has not changed and he is a hypocrite.

Now I’ve stated it multiple times. I’ve explicitly stated my opinions. I’ve also apologized for what could be construed as an implicit defense; that was not the point of my original post.

I have not defended this guy, I do not intend to defend him, I apologize if my post is construed as a defense of him. Hopefully, this clears up my stance. If I need to do more, I’m open to ideas.

I will note that even though I have been stating this (sans apology), I am getting no where. Even as I back away from any defenses of him, I am still seeing vitriolic comments being tossed my way. How does any of this help a rational discussion?

. I didn’t think he’d actually changed, but I was open to the possibility. After further reading, I have stepped away from it being a possibility and stated that he has not changed and he is a hypocrite.

Why didn’t you do this first before attempting an inane devils advocacy, also known as trolling?

I’ve explicitly stated my opinions.

Unevidenced OPINIONS can and will be *POOF* dismissed here. They are pure drivel without evidence.

If I need to do more, I’m open to ideas.

Shut the fuck up. You are boring and evidenceless.

How does any of this help a rational discussion?

Rational discussion requires evidence, not just OPINION. You had no evidence, hence you weren’t engaged in rational discussion. You were bloviating OPINION to get a rise out of the horde.

“Why didn’t you do this first before attempting an inane devils advocacy, also known as trolling?”

I thought I had, I will try to be more explicit in the future:
“my guess is that he was preaching this stuff back then and hasn’t really changed his ways”
“I was not aware of all the details and that he kept this covered up….There wasn’t any part of my post that stated what he had done was acceptable nor did I state that he was not responsible for his actions. My only point was that people can change, and that I did not know this guy’s whole story.”
“I have also not stated that it should be assumed that people have changed and in my first post I made the comment that I didn’t believe he had.”
“So when I state that this guy’s behavior is reprehensible, and upon looking into this further I feel he is a hypocrite”

I’ve acknowledged that my first comment was easily interpreted as a defense and that is was unintentional. Considering I haven’t tried to defend this guy in any way, I don’t see what evidence I should be trying to put forth.

I’ve acknowledged that my first comment was easily interpreted as a defense and that is was unintentional. Considering I haven’t tried to defend this guy in any way, I don’t see what evidence I should be trying to put forth.

Here’s a couple of questions for you. What do you hope to gain with repeated inane posts that aren’t changing anyone’s mind about your idiocy? Are you actually accomplishing what you want? If you aren’t, why are you still here?